It could cost insurance companies $1.2bn for the bridge damages and millions more for the six deaths.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/cpwMp
Oh yeah because insurance companies paying what they’re contractually obliged to is “loss”
Well yes, unplanned expenses in excess of income are “loss”, regardless of if you’re contractually obligated to do so.
I imagine the insurance agency didn’t plan to pay for an entire bridge this fiscal year, so they’re going to have one bigass loss.
Insurance has overhead insurance for these things.
And if they don’t they should fail.
Yeah and these reinsurances are also insurance companies, so the statement “insurances could lose up to 3bn” is still right.
Even further: most losses are booked by reinsurance companies, cause prior insurances mostly don’t cover big sums on there own. It’s like “10 million for me and the rest for you.”
No, but they planned for one bridge every 50 years. So this is that year.
deleted by creator
Insurance thought they found an infinite money glitch to get big sums of money forever unless the bridge collapses, but it relied on the bridge not collapsing. Whoops.
What a bizarre comment. What are they supposed to call it, a “gain”?
Cost/expense.
deleted by creator
